Pages

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Herman Cain's campaign headquarters has released a response to a story, broken this evening on Politico, that in the 1990s two female employees of the National Restaurant Association "complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain," who at the time was head of the trade group.

Calling the story "thinly source allegations," Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon said: "Since Washington establishment critics haven't had much luck in attacking Mr. Cain's ideas to fix a bad economy and create jobs, they are trying to attack him in any way they can." Gordon did not address any of the specific allegations in the report. Asked for a more specific answer, the campaign did not provide details.

UPDATE: When this story broke on Geraldo's show, Ann Coulter blew a gasket and blamed liberals for releasing this information but I suspect it was released by either Romney's campaign or the Republican establishment (progressives). Cain is a huge threat to both because of his lead in the polls and they believe the nomination belongs to Romney. We don't want Romney! - Reggie

YouTube description: Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, discusses the Declaration of Independence, the founders, Woodrow Wilson, and the founders of modern liberalism and how they gave more power to government.

Conventional wisdom has it that the 2012 election will be all about the dismal economy, unemployment and the soaring deficit. That appears a safe bet since such matters touch the electorate, are much in the news at the moment and have indisputably gotten worse on Barack Obama's watch.

It seems increasingly likely, however, that the American people are going to have a whole lot more to worry about by next fall. Indeed, the way things are going, by November 2012, we may see the Mideast - and perhaps other parts of the planet - plunged into a cataclysmic war.

Consider just a few of the straws in the wind of a gathering storm:

Muammar Gadhafi's death last week prompted the Obama administration to trumpet the President's competence as Commander-in-Chief and the superiority of his "small footprint," "lead-from-behind" approach to waging war over the more traditional - and costly and messy - one pursued by George W. Bush. The bloom came off that false rose on Sunday when Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the chairman of the National Transitional Council, repeatedly declared his government's fealty to shariah, Islam's brutally repressive, totalitarian political-military-legal doctrine.

Among other things, Abdul-Jalil said shariah would be the "basic source" of all legislation. Translation: Forget about representative democracy. Under shariah, Allah makes the laws, not man.

In short, the result of Mr. Obama's $2 billion dollar expenditure to oust Gadhafi is a regime that will be led by jihadists, controls vast oil reserves and has inherited a very substantial arsenal (although some of it - including reportedly as many as 20,000 surface-to-air missiles - has "gone missing.") This scarcely can be considered a victory for the United States and will probably prove a grave liability.

partial YouTube description: Last week, Reason.tv followed investment guru, radio show host, and unflappable defender of capitalism Peter Schiff as he spent three hours among the Occupy Wall Street protesters in Manhattan's Zuccotti Park.

An unapologetic member of "the 1 Percent," Schiff argued with all comers for the better part of an afternoon.

Schiff is no ordinary observer. As the prinicipal of the financial firm Euro Pacific Capital, he's a full-fledged and unapologetic member of "the 1 Percent." As an outspoken radio show host and commentator, he not only predicted the housing crash and financial crisis, he railed bank and auto-sector bailouts as they were happening. Schiff believes that capitalism offers is the only hope for young, frustrated people to have a vibrant and prosperous future. So he went to Occupy Wall Street to engage and debate the protesters.

Touring the Occupy Wall Street scene in New York with a sign that read "I Am the 1%, Let's Talk," Schiff spent more than three hours on the scene, explaining the difference between cronyism and capitalism, bailouts and balance sheets, and more.

"The regulation we want is the market," said Schiff. "That's what works."

Schiff describes himself as "sympathetic" to the plight of the OWS protesters, but thinks their anger is misdirected at legitimate business interests and should be better at the White House, Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the crony capitalists they've bailed out.

They’re railing against freeloaders and ex-cons for stealing their stuff and spoiling their utopia. They’re squabbling with each other over money and power. The weather is turning frightful and a cumbersome bureaucracy of their own making is strangling their spontaneity.

Their invasion is costing downtown Manhattan businesses and residents a boatload of money. But watching the Occupy Wall Street vagabonds bang their heads against the laws of human nature -- that’s priceless!

Oops, I just echoed a dreaded corporate slogan. My bad -- but somehow it fits the moment.

In fact, the problems the protesters face are almost enough for me to hope the police don’t break up the party. The “Lord of the Flies” descent from utopia to petty power struggles, in front of TV cameras, is a political-science lesson, not to mention deliciously ironic.

Running a protest movement apparently involves a lot of dirty work and isn’t so much fun. Imagine how hard it will be to run the world!

Six weeks after turning a small park into a fetid slum and spawning ratty imitations across the country, the socialist-inspired movement with a union face and bulging bank account is at a crossroads. The insistence that there are no leaders and that everybody gets a say on everything is yielding a gridlock to make Washington proud.

Most protesters still can’t define their goals beyond ending capitalism and making life more fair, which means they want other people’s money. Meanwhile, donations of goods and cash pile up, with a reported $500,000 on deposit.

The cash marks an embarrassment for a movement supposedly railing against capitalism and wealth, especially now that a radical group called the Alliance for Global Justice is legally sponsoring the protest. By lending its tax-exempt status -- for a 7 percent cut! -- the global-justice group allows donors to deduct their contributions from federal taxes and gives its own board control over the money.

The alliance, based in Washington, is a hotbed of far-left causes that range from backing hunger strikes in California prisons to denouncing the CIA and oil companies. Its Web site says the group sponsors operations in the Gaza Strip, with Hamas, and boasts of an alliance with Anarchists Against the Wall, which contests Israel’s security barrier in the West Bank.

The group suggests it has a relationship with Iran, supported the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua and expresses solidarity with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez against the United States.

For the 7 percent fee, it offers its tax-exempt status to “grassroots nonprofits” and provides payroll services, liability insurance and prepares federal tax forms. It also offers “activist training” -- which is like job training without an actual job.

So many differences in message, in tone and in respect for others, yet President 0bama supports the occupiers as they spew hate, anti-semitism, anti-military, and class and race warfare. He believes in their message and action of destruction, violence, vandalization, rape, theft and breaking the law if necessary.

Myrtle Beach, S.C. -- Charges of anti-Muslim discrimination at Catholic University in D.C. has presidential candidate Newt Gingrich up in arms.

"I look at the things that are going on in this country that make no sense to me," he said to a crowd of about 250 South Carolinians gathered at a pig roast fundraiser organized by the Myrtle Beach Tea Party. "We now have a lawsuit apparently by some Muslim students at Catholic University who are offended being at a Catholic university. Now my first answer to them is 'Fine, don't go to a Catholic university.'"

His comments drew applause. Gingrich was referring to allegations that Catholic University of America is illegally discriminating against Muslim students by "denying them access to benefits that other student groups enjoy," and, in particular, not providing space for daily prayers so that they have to pray in classrooms or campus chapels where they are surrounded by Catholic symbols. The charges are currently being reviewed by the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights.

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.

It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.

The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.

But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

While Republican presidential candidates are looking forward by proposing variations of a flat income tax, President Obama’s tax-the-rich campaign strategy is looking backward—to Franklin Roosevelt’s 1936 reelection campaign. FDR won his reelection, but the American people lost: Roosevelt’s new taxes on business and the “economic royalists” gave us the “Roosevelt recession” of 1937-38.

By August of 1935, Roosevelt had achieved some of his signature pieces of legislation: a new entitlement program known as Social Security, banking reform, pro-union reform, infrastructure expansion and massive transfers of wealth to the poor and middle classes. Sound familiar?

FDR also ran up federal spending significantly: from 6 percent to 9 percent of the economy.

However, FDR needed more revenue to support his big-government schemes. More importantly, he needed a villain to explain why, given the passage of his New Deal legislation, government spending and regulations, the economy was still struggling.

So he proposed raising taxes on the rich, which he dubbed a “Wealth Tax.” As he explained to Congress in June 1935, “Our revenue laws have operated in many ways to the unfair advantage of the few, and they have done little to prevent the unjust concentration of wealth and economic power. … Social unrest and a deepening sense of unfairness are dangers to our national life which we must minimize by rigorous methods.” President Obama couldn’t have said it better himself.

There were several components to FDR’s plan. First he wanted very high taxes on the rich—up to 79 percent—and to lower the thresholds so that more high-income earners paid more taxes. He also wanted to increase the estate tax. As for business, he wanted to close the “loopholes,” a graduated corporate income tax and a tax on intercorporate dividends.

But the bill that actually passed the Democratically controlled Congress in 1935 would not raise much money—estimated at about $250 million, which initially seemed like enough to cover budgetary shortfalls. FDR’s associates acknowledged at the time that the Wealth Tax was more about politics than policy, or as Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau put it, “it was more or less a campaign document.”

However, by 1936 Roosevelt needed yet more revenue and had apparently grown to relish his new class warfare and railing against “organized money.” So he proposed another business tax: an undistributed profits tax.

Like Obama, FDR faced what he saw as a big problem: Businesses had a lot of cash on hand but weren’t spending it. “Regime uncertainty,” the reluctance of business to hire and invest when faced with a growing onslaught of new taxes and regulations, suppressed capital spending. No one knew what the future held so businesses held on to their cash hoping to survive. Again, sound familiar?

Roosevelt believed that forcing businesses to spend that money would create jobs. So he proposed, and got, his undistributed profits tax. If the government were going to tax idle money anyway, maybe businesses would put it to work.

Last Thursday was officially “Diaper Need Awareness Day” in the State of Connecticut. Were you aware of it? There are so many awareness-raising days, it’s hard to keep track. Maybe we could have an Awareness-Raising Day Awareness Day. At any rate, the first annual Diaper Need Awareness Day was proclaimed by Dan Malloy, governor of the Nutmeg State, and they had a big old awareness-raising get-together in New Haven. It’s not clear yet whether they’ve got an official ribbon. We’re running a bit low on ribbon colors these days: It’s not just pink ribbons for breast cancer, but also teal for agoraphobia, periwinkle for acid reflux, pink-and-blue ribbons for amniotic fluid embolisms, and pinstripe ribbons for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. We could use a Ribbon-Hue Awareness Day to raise awareness about how we’re falling behind in the race for more ribbon colors.

If you’re wondering what sentient being isn’t aware of diapers, you’re missing the point: Connecticut representative Rosa DeLauro is raising awareness of the need for diapers in order to, as Politico reported, “push the Federal Government to provide free diapers to poor families.” Congresswoman DeLauro has introduced the DIAPER Act — that’s to say, the Diaper Investment and Aid to Promote Economic Recovery Act. So don’t worry, it’s not welfare, it’s “stimulus.” As Fox News put it, “A U.S. congresswoman in Connecticut wants to boost the economy by offering free diapers to low-income families.” And, given that sinking bazillions of dollars into green-jobs schemes to build eco-cars in Finland and a federal program to buy guns for Mexican drug cartels and all the other fascinating innovations of the Obama administration haven’t worked, who’s to say borrowing money from the Chinese politburo and sticking it in your kid’s diaper isn’t the kind of outside-the-box thinking that will do the trick?

In fact, the federal government already provides free diapers for at least one lucky American. Stanley Thornton Jr. of California receives Supplementary Security Income disability checks from the Social Security Administration in order to sit around the house all day wearing a giant diaper and a giant onesie, sucking on a giant pacifier and playing with a giant baby rattle. Stanley Jr. runs a website for fellow “adult babies” called BedWettingABDL.com. I believe I first heard of the “adult baby” phenomenon some years ago in London. If memory serves, there was a club, and the members lay around in giant cribs being read bedtime stories by a bosomy nanny. Minor celebrities and possibly backbench Tory members of Parliament may have been involved. In those days, it was what we called a “fetish” and you had to do it on your own dime. Now it’s a “disability” and the United States government picks up the tab. And, if that’s not progress, what is?

Sen. Tom Coburn happened to catch Stan with his babysitter and fellow disability-check recipient on a reality show, and wondered how a chap capable of running a popular website and doing such complicated carpentry jobs as his own giant highchair could be legitimately classified as “disabled.” But the Social Security Administration said Junior qualifies, and Senator Coburn was condemned as heartless: Why, if those mean Republicans got their way, the streets would be crawling with giant babies bawling, “I want my mommy!” Conversely, if Congresswoman DeLauro gets her way and the stampede for government Huggies gets going, Stanley Thornton Jr. will still be entitled to park his giant pedal car in the disabled space while the penniless single mom from Hartford has to leave the Toyota at the back of the lot and hike in.

DENVER (AP) — Tim Tebow inspired a phenomenon when he dropped to a knee and began praying as his teammates wildly celebrated around him after an improbable overtime victory in Miami last weekend.

That was simply Tebow "Tebowing," a phrase coined by a fan sitting in a bar in New York watching the popular yet polarizing quarterback rally the Denver Broncos.

Jared Kleinstein was mesmerized by Tebow's peaceful demeanor kneeling on the turf amid all the chaos that ensued. He launched a website in which fans could submit photos of themselves "Tebowing," which means getting down on a knee and praying, even if everyone else around you is doing something completely different.

Afghan Ambassador on Freedom for Christians: ‘Nothing Will Be Contradictory to Sharia Law’

(CNSNews.com) – When asked by CNSNews.com whether Afghanistan should repeal its laws that make it a crime for a Muslim to convert to Christianity, Afghan Ambassador to the United States Eklil Hakimi did not answer directly but said that while his country's constitution provides for “freedom of religion” it also says that "nothing will be contradictory to Sharia law."

The State Department report on religious freedom in Afghanistan released last month said: "Conversion from Islam is considered apostasy and is punishable by death under some interpretations of Islamic law in the country."

The U.S. military has remained in Afghanistan for more than 10 years after overthrowing the Islamist Taliban regime there in 2001. That regime had provided sanctuary to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in the years prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 al Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States.

CNSNews.com asked Hakimi: “Regarding religious freedom, according to the State Department, at least two individuals had been detained in Afghanistan for converting from Islam to Christianity. Should Afghanistan repeal all laws that make it illegal to convert?”

Hakimi said: “Well, according to our Constitution, there is a freedom of religion. Meanwhile, it says that nothing will be contradictory to the Sharia law. So, while we step into those principles, we have to be careful because we are in a very conservative society, a society that they live based on their faith. So, those cases that you have mentioned, our government, based on these principles, they have handled those cases in a very timely manner and also in a way that should not deter from those principles.”

I was once told by someone involved in a federal investigation not to let any identified federal law enforcement officer into your house without: a) a warrant and b) your lawyer present. At the time, this notion seemed a bit less than cooperative. Shouldn’t law-abiding citizens be able to live their lives free from the fear that our own government would underhandedly manipulate our rights in their pursuit of an investigation? After all, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution enumerates a limitation on the federal government, one that prevents “unreasonable search and seizure.” Today, this enumerated protection is being ignored by – of all institutions – the U.S. Justice Department, under the darkened shadow of Attorney General Eric Holder.

A recent column by The Atlantic’s Emily Berman, a Furman Fellow and Brennan Center Fellow at NYU School of Law, informs the citizenry:

It just got easier for the federal government to collect information about innocent Americans — and those Americans have had surprisingly little say in the matter.

On October 15, the FBI reportedly implemented new rules that relax restrictions on, and oversight of, the FBI’s intelligence collection activities. Although they are not available to the public, reports indicate the changes permit FBI agents to search an individual’s trash with the goal of finding material that might pressure him into becoming a government informant, grant agents the authority to search commercial or law enforcement databases without first opening an investigation, and reduce the type of investigations subjected to heightened oversight because of their relationship to protected First Amendment expression, association, or religious practice.

This is the third modification of the FBI’s intelligence collection authorities since September 11, 2001. First in 2002, again in 2008, and finally, just last week, amendments were adopted with scant public attention and with minimal — if any — congressional involvement. Groups and communities concerned about the new rules’ impact on civil liberties, particularly the risk of religious or ethnic profiling, also had no constructive input.

Hot Air has a video embedded in one of their articles that is put out by whichmitt.com. Which Mitt also has a YouTube channel and the videos are of Romney, himself, changing positions on everything imaginable. This man has no convictions and sways with the blowing of the wind. There is no way to know what he really thinks or believes about anything because his views are constantly changing! These videos are very effective and I highly recommend going to these sites to see them.

Oh, did I mention they are put out by the Democratic National Committee? Yes, they are and this is another reason to dismiss Romney as the Republican nominee. - Reggie

Back to the future with Mitt Romney, the Wendell Willkie​ of our day. Consider the eerie parallels.

In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt ran for a third term, smashing the two-term tradition started by George Washington. Facing a backlash from voters for what appeared to many Americans as a power grab, Roosevelt also looked weak as the economy took another big nosedive in the late '30s, and as Americans became more concerned over Hitler's War in Europe and more sympathetic to Britain.

Republicans sensed victory. Senators Robert Taft and Arthur Vandenberg, and New York District Attorney Thomas Dewey were the leading contenders. But they were isolationists and had no real idea how to pull the economy out of its tailspin. Wall Street industrialist Wendell Willkie would get the nomination, promising that his business experience would lead the nation back to prosperity.

Willkie was a delegate to the 1932 Democrat National Convention, and had supported Roosevelt. He continued to be a a supporter of Roosevelt's New Deal programs. But when the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) pushed his Commonwealth and Southern Corporation out of the utility business in the TVA area, Willkie became a critic, denouncing government-owned companies that competed with private companies.

Roosevelt couldn't have picked a better opponent. Willkie represented everything the majority of Americans had come to mistrust—the Wall Street fat cat turned flip-flopping politician. Roosevelt and henchmen such as Harold Ickes denounced greedy "plutocrats" of Wall Street and began a campaign we now call "class warfare," linking Willklie to the privileged class, and denouncing the "fascism" of private business leaders who, the administration and its media allies charged, wanted to lord it over the common man.

Willkie responded with a campaign criticizing corruption in the Roosevelt programs, promising not to dismantle the New Deal, but to make it run more efficiently. He would keep the regulatory and welfare programs of the New Deal, but take the Roosevelt cronies out. He offered no specifics.

Roosevelt, mired in failed economic policies and on the brink of a world at war that many Americans wanted to avoid, still triumphed over Willkie, winning 38 states and an electoral college landslide of 449 to 82.

During the war, Willkie was a fervent ally of Roosevelt, and the President hired him as his personal representative to sell the internationalist story to all corners of the world. Willkie published a book titled One World.

In modern terms, Willkie was a RINO (Republican in Name Only). He failed to present voters with a choice, but instead offered a vaguely critical echo. Just like Mitt Romney.

Friday, October 28, 2011

The Republican presidential dynamic — various candidates rise and recede; Mitt Romney remains at about 25 percent support — is peculiar because conservatives correctly believe that it is important to defeat Barack Obama but unimportant that Romney be president. This is not cognitive dissonance.

Obama, a floundering naif who thinks ATMs aggravate unemployment, is bewildered by a national tragedy of shattered dreams, decaying workforce skills and forgone wealth creation. Romney cannot enunciate a defensible, or even decipherable, ethanol policy.

Life poses difficult choices, but not about ethanol. Government subsidizes ethanol production, imposes tariffs to protect manufacturers of it and mandates the use of it — and it injures the nation’s and the world’s economic, environmental, and social (it raises food prices) well-being.

In May, in corn-growing Iowa, Romney said, “I support” — present tense — “the subsidy of ethanol.” And: “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” But in October he told Iowans he is “a business guy,” so as president he would review this bipartisan — the last Republican president was an ethanol enthusiast — folly. Romney said that he once favored (past tense) subsidies to get the ethanol industry “on its feet.” (In the 19th century, Republican “business guys” justified high tariffs for protecting “infant industries”). But Romney added, “I’ve indicated I didn’t think the subsidy had to go on forever.” Ethanol subsidies expire in December, but “I might have looked at more of a decline over time” because of “the importance of ethanol as a domestic fuel.” Besides, “ethanol is part of national security.” However, “I don’t want to say” I will propose new subsidies. Still, ethanol has “become an important source of amplifying our energy capacity.” Anyway, ethanol should “continue to have prospects of growing its share of” transportation fuels. Got it?

Do you remember the Bill Clinton presidency? I certainly do. Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate in 1992 and 1996 ensuring a Clinton victory both times by splitting the conservative vote.

If anyone perceived to be slightly conservative (Ron Paul, Donald Trump, etc.) runs as a third party candidate in 2012, they will split the conservative vote and re-elect Barack Hussein Obama. The outrageous fact is - they know it! - Reggie

Thursday, October 27, 2011

On this date in 1964, the actor, Ronald Reagan, gave a televised campaign speech to America. I have posted this speech more than once on this blog and have a permanent link to it under Recommended Videos because it is one of the most important speeches we can hear today.

At the time of this speech, Reagan was campaigning for Arizona Senator, Barry Goldwater in hopes of Goldwater winning the presidency that year. Unfortunately, that did not happen but the conservative Reagan began his political rise that eventually saw him elected twice to the governorship of California (which he could never win today!) and thrust him into the White House for eight years.

Even though Reagan gave this speech recommending Goldwater, the passion and love he has for America is compelling and I believe it was this speech that made people take notice of him. One can also hear and feel the disdain he has for Socialism, Marxism, Communism, etc.

The events of today are eerily repeating the events Reagan spoke of in this speech. Please, take thirty minutes and watch because once again We the People must choose between liberty and tyranny.

YouTube description: Please see www.itsworkingwisconsin.com. The website is committed to providing the facts to Wisconsin taxpayers. Every week there are more examples of how It's Working. Together, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy have chronicled success stories from across Wisconsin.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Jim Rodgers knows the economy and how it works. If he has chose to support Ron Paul and his ideas and financial plan then you know Ron Paul knows what he is talking about.

- Michael

As the economy Continues its downward slide due to the failed leadership of both the President and Congress, billionaire investor Jim Rogers sees no other alternative to turn things around than for Ron Paul to win the Presidency. Rogers' views on both gold prices and the 2012 Presidency were addressed on August 27th in a comparison made between himself, and economist Nuriel Roubini.

The top 10 reasons why Dr. Ron Paul is the only rational presidential choice for

Americans, Democratic, Republican and Independent:

10. Dr. Paul works a real job, has run a small a business and served in the military. He has been a physician for 40 years, co-owned a coin store for 12 years and was a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and U.S. National Guard for five years. That was how our country was set up -- for public servants to work a real job that they returned to after their public service was done. He has real skills and is not a professional politician.

9. Dr. Paul has decades of experience running a business and in depth knowlegde of health care.

8. Dr. Paul understands money and is chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology.

7. Dr. Paul does the right thing referencing the U.S. Constitution and works for the country versus campaigning for his ego. He has been serving the public in politics for over 40 years.

6. Dr. Paul refuses to accept a federal pension for his public service, something other members get after a short period because they do not have real jobs. According to Dr. Paul, to receive a pension for public service would be "hypocritical and immoral."

Incredible. This is something no American should approve of regardless of political affiliation. The people that ask for Obama to circumvent Congress are asking for a dictator, not a President! The sad thing is - they are too ignorant to know this.

I truly believe America is in serious decline and will undoubtedly implode due to our present condition. It is not hard to understand the reason why. - Reggie

Yesterday CNN asked its viewers whether President Barack Obama should bypass Congress to enact his economic policies, using–and expanding–his executive powers to control vast swathes of our economic life.

Adopting Obama’s premise that our economic woes are all the fault of Republicans on Capitol Hill, agreeing with his view that more government intervention is necessary, and accepting his assurance that his new mortgage and student loan plans will actually work, CNN’s Carol Costello all but urged viewers to applaud Obama’s rule by decree:

What is clear? Unless Congress acts in a big way, the economy will continue to suffer. And Congress does not appear likely to do that. So President Obama is moving forward on his own. Monday, the home mortgage plan. Tomorrow a plan to help with student loans. The President’s intent: to show Americans he’s doing something, and of course to shame Congress into acting.

So the Talk Back question for you today: should the president bypass Congress if he thinks it will help the economy?

Note that Costello did not just ask viewers about specific policies that may or may not already be within Obama’s executive jurisdiction. She presented the general conclusion that the president should bypass Congress to “help” [sic] the economy–in the form of a question, to be sure, but with the answer already a foregone conclusion.

Predictably, three out of the four responses Costello later read supported the idea that Obama “should take whatever executive actions he can to get things happening for America,” that Obama should have “done this YEARS ago,” and that Obama “should definitely bypass Congress.”

Executive fiat is preferable, CNN has now suggested, to democratic deliberations that might limit the government’s or the president’s power over the economy. And it expects citizens to be able to “talk back” in such circumstances.

That is the dangerous fallacy that F.A. Hayek warned about in The Road to Serfdom (1944)–namely, the idea that we can increase the power of a central economic authority without losing our cherished political freedom.

In fact, Hayek warns, economic dictatorship leads directly to political dictatorship, whatever good intentions the advocates of central planning may have:

Note: There are two MRC TV videos with this story but I did not embed them because of the trouble I am having with MRC TV videos. When you click to read the rest of the story, you can watch the videos.
- Reggie